Ethics Quotes

Obesrvations on Gavin Newsom’s Unethical Quote of the Week

/ Jack Marshall / 18 Comments

Listen above to Newsom, the incompetent governor of California, as he engagingly insults a roomful of African Americans. Promoting his Presidential campaign-launching memoir, “Young Man in a Hurry,” Newsom was asked about his dyslexia and his personal experiences that voters could relate to (the old “he understands people like me” trope that Bill Clinton exploited so well). He responded by describing his struggles with dyslexia and somehow managed to sound like he regarded his low SAT scores as a badge of honor, telling the almost all black audience: “I’m like you. I’m no better than you.”

Already there are many discussions of this—what was it? A gaffe? A canny bit of self-deprecation? Smoking gun patronizing?—on the web and social media. To me, and I admit I’m mired in confirmation bias when I look at anything Newsom does through the lens of his frightening EA dossier—I mean, just look at that mess!— I classify the remark as pure res ipsa loquitur: the thing speaks for itself. Newsom blundered into expressing the attitude progressives and Democrats have had toward American blacks for decades. They believe that it is a voting bloc that is easily fooled and exploited, and, as a group, gullible and not too swift on the uptake. That’s Newsom, and that’s the Democratic Party that he wants to lead.

Pages: 1 2

Happy Birthday, George Washington From Ethics Alarms, And Thank Your Dad For Us Too…

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

It’s George Washington’s birthday. Nine years ago I wrote, in one of my annual posts on perhaps our most important President (George Will calls him “the Indispensable Man) that something has gone seriously wrong when one’s blog has 287 posts on Donald Trump and only six about Washington. I don’t even want to think about what the count is now, but here is another one in George’s column.

George Washington’s father Augustine had at one time or another run across a list of 110 virtues that young men should adopt and practice in order to be become civil, respectful and honorable members of polite society. He made George, and presumably all his sons (he had six of them) copy them by hand to aid in memorizing the list. George, at least, dutifully committed to memory “110 Rules of Civility & Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation,”  which was  based on a document composed by French Jesuits in 1595; neither the author nor the English translator and adapter are known today. The elder Washington was following the theory of Aristotle, who held that principles and values began as being externally imposed by authority (morals) and eventually became internalized as character.

Those ethics alarms installed by his father stayed in working order throughout George’s remarkable life. It was said that Washington was known to quote the rules when appropriate, and never forgot them. They did not teach him to be the gifted leader he became, but they helped to make him a trustworthy one.

The list has been available on Ethics Alarms under Rule Book since its beginnings in 2009. By all means read the whole list; I have used it often in ethics seminars but haven’t referred to it here for too long. The 90 rules omitted in the list below contain some gems too, and many that raise curiosity about what exactly the author was thinking of. For example, I find #2. “When in company, put not your hands to any part of the body not usually discovered” and #3. “Show nothing to your friend that may affright him” intriguing.

Below are my 20 favorite entries from the list that helped make George George, therefore helped George make America America:

Pages: 1 2

Unethical Quote of the Day, (Also Stupid): Theater Critic Nuveen Kumar

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

“But I don’t think it’s necessarily antiwoke to tell an all-white story or to relegate nonwhite characters to the margins, if that’s where they fit the creative intentions.”

—Former Washington Post theater critic Naveen Kumar in the paper’s “Whitewashing ‘Wuthering Heights.'”

Oh, well that’s really big of the critic, don’t you think? How generous of him! He is willing to concede that a director might still be regarded as a good person if he or she doesn’t cast actors “of color” (you know, like the critic) to play characters written as white, visualized by the playwright as white, in a story obviously about white people!

Yes, this fatuous, offensive statement came late in an essay that was already obnoxious, with the biased and reductive headline, “Whitewashing ‘Wuthering Heights’.” [Gift link!] The Post post was defending, sort-of -but- not-really, Emerald Fennell’s “Wuthering Heights” film, in which Heathcliffe, Emily Bronte’s hormonal romantic anti-hero, is played…

…by a white actor. Never mind that previous film adaptations have cast Heathcliff as white, notably the classic starring Lawrence Olivier in the role, probably because he was the best actor alive at the time.

Yes, it is true that the ethnicity of Heathcliff has always been a matter of debate: with Bronte describing him as “dark-skinned,” a “gypsy,” and a “little Lascar,” a term for South Asian sailors. The idea is that he is an outsider and at the bottom of the social ladder; that certainly would justify casting a black, Indian or other non-white actor, but certainly doesn’t mean he has to be played that way. (I would not think that casting Heathcliff as Swedish would work, but you never know: I could see one of the Skarsgaard boys pulling it off.)

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Quiz: Rep. Fine’s “Islamaphobic” Quote

/ Jack Marshall / 34 Comments

Oh, I find this fascinating, especially in light of the previous post.

Nerdeen Kiswani, a Palestinian Muslim New Yorker and activist, said in a social media post that dog poop littered snowdrifts in the city proved that dogs should have no place in society as indoor pets because, she wrote, “like we’ve said all along, they are unclean.”

Responding to this obnoxious assertion of foreign values and priorities over American ones, Representative Randy Fine (R-Fla.) replied, “If they force us to choose, the choice between dogs and Muslims is not a difficult one.”

Naturally the Mad Left exploded with horror and indignation, with the usual calls for the insensitive Republican’s resignation and worse. But the truth is, if we are being honest about our own culture and priorities, if every Muslim in the United States joined in a mass ultimatum stating, “This is non-negotiable. Either the United States gives up its dogs as house pets, or we’re leaving!” the overwhelming majority of Americans—including me—would say, “Gee, that’s a shame. Well, bye! Good luck in your future endeavors!”

The Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…

Was it unethical for Rep. Fine to say what he did?

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Quote of the Month: Lindsey Vonn

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

For a while it looked like star American downhill skier Lindsey Vonn would lose the leg she broke a week ago when she crashed 13 seconds into her run and was airlifted off the course by helicopter. Vonn suffered a complex tibia fracture that will require multiple surgeries to repair. Her third surgery was completed successfully.

I came across Vonn’s post about her injury and the state of mind that led to it while I was completing the last post about inspiring poems. In the last Open Forum, there was some criticism of the athlete for subjecting herself to the risk of further injury by insisting on competing despite a recent and unhealed ACL tear. Her Instagram post below persuasively addressed such critiques. It also struck me as perfectly embodying the lessons and values contained in Kipling’s “If,” my father’s favorite poem and one of the inspiring works of poetry schools no longer teach.

Lindsey wrote,

Perfect.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Cal.) Locks Up “Incompetent Elected Official of the Month” AND Chases the Leaders in the Super-Competitive 2026 “Unethical Asshole of the Year” Race!

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

This is so exciting!

Also depressing, of course. I believe it is fair to conclude that the U.S. Congress has never had so many unqualified, intellectually inferior, obnoxious, ethics-free jackasses staining its halls and reputation at the same time. True, it is difficult to assess the quality of our elected officials prior to, say, World War II, but my conclusion is based on the belief that if the U.S. ever had a government more dominated by knaves, villains and fools, we wouldn’t have lasted this long.

Even with such daunting competition (Marjory Taylor Green, “The Squad,” Rep. Raskin, Rep. Boebert, Senator Senator Hirono, et al.) Khanna managed to stand out yesterday. No only did he state on the floor of the House and on public media that four men were sex criminals when they were not, he followed up his indefensible gaffe by refusing to apologize and instead stooping to “Whataboutism,” Rationalization #2, the Democratic Party’s favorite after #22, “It’s not the worst thing.” Here is #2, if you haven’t reviewed the Rationalization List lately:

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Dunce and Unethical Quote of the Week: John Kasich

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

I confess: there was a time when I considered supporting John Kasich to be the 2016 GOP nominee for President (anyone but Trump…well, okay, and Dr. Ben Carson). Then I started listening to him. After he wiped out in the primaries, Kasich became a committed NeverTrump fanatic like the revolting Lincoln Project scamsters, left politics after being a wishy-washy Governor of Ohio, and then began being an anti-Trump “contributor” on Fox News, then CNN, NBC and MSNBC (the tell: he’s a liar) during the first Trump administration.

Kasich enthusiasticly supported Joe Biden in 2020, saying, in an endorsement that has aged as well as Walter Donovan in “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”..

….“I’m sure there are Republicans and independents who couldn’t imagine crossing over to support a Democrat. They fear Joe may turn sharp left and leave them behind. I don’t believe that because I know the measure of the man. It’s reasonable, faithful, respectful.”

The tell: Kasich is an idiot.

This diagnosis was proven spectacularly correct when Kasich tweeted, following the NFL’s cynical Bad Bunny halftime show:

“Love the halftime show which celebrates the wonderful Latino culture. Great pick and great show. Bad Bunny hit a grand slam home run!”

Apparently the ” wonderful Latino culture” is celebrated with lyrics like these…

…which Kasich either sat there getting aroused by because he’s a dirty old man, or had no freaking idea what Latinos were hearing. I tend to think that he didn’t even watch the half-time show but defended it anyway because Kasich hates Trump to pieces, so he has done so often in the past decade, Kasich proceeded to make a fool of himself.

There are some admirable aspects to Hispanic culture indeed, like devotion to family, entrepreneurism,a strong work ethics and religious faith, but twerking and a crotch obsession arenot among them. Kasich praised Bud Bunny because Trump Derangement has eaten his brain, such as it was.

Oh…and the tweet also proves Kasich is a dork. Who but a dork uses a baseball term to describe a Super Bowl half-time show?

The N.F.L. Is Helping Chuck Klosterman’s Prediction Come True [Corrected]

/ Jack Marshall / 45 Comments

I was going to get this up before the Super Bowl, but it turns out that the issue was further crystalized by the game itself. As happens approximately 50% of the time with this annual spectacle, the game was a yawn, and much of the news coming out of the contest involved the NFL’s deliberate transformation of what was once considered a unifying family cultural event, like Fourth of July fireworks, into a partisan, progressive statement about how America sucks, with expensive TV ads extolling capitalism and patriotism at the same time. That’s message whiplash, and ethically irresponsible.

As the New York Times explained, without criticism, the NFL took a hard turn Left when it put Barack Obama pal Jay-Z, the rap star and impresario, in charge of the Super Bowl halftime show after the 2018 Super Bowl had triggered anger from fans over players “taking a knee” during the National Anthem. The Times, spinning as usual, says that the kneeling was intended to “draw attention to police brutality and social justice issues.”

As Ethics Alarms pointed out at the time, none of the kneelers, including its cynical originator, over-the-hill quarterback Colin Kaepernick, ever explained coherently what they were kneeling about. What “police brutality”? Oh, you know, Mike Brown, whom Black Lives Matters still says was “murdered” on its website. What social justice issues? Oh, you know: it’s time for white people to be discriminated against to make up for slavery. The left-turn was a greed-induced mass virtue signal to blacks, clueless young fans, and Democrats. (It helped that President Trump vociferously attacked Kaepernick and Co., so the kneeling appealed to the Trump Deranged too. (See Dissonance Scale, Cognitive)

The Times:

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Quote of the Week: Stanford Student Elsa Johnson

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

“This should be the real message of the story: Stanford must reform its disability accommodation system so it is fair, helping only those who need it most. At the same time, the university should encourage students to live up to the greatest human attributes: hard work, honesty, perseverance and excellence. As things stand, it’s teaching us the worst lesson of all: cheaters always prosper while the good get punished.”

—Elsa Johnson, the Stanford student who wrote about how students there contrive “disabilities” to gain advantageous accommodations from the school.

This was the conclusion of “I exposed Stanford’s disability racket. I was stunned by the reaction on campus.” Ethics Alarms discussed Johnson’s original essay here. In her follow-up, she claims that the reaction to her “whistle-blowing” article (my term, not hers) were generally positive, that her fellow students were glad she exposed a culture on campus that encouraged students to cheat. She wrote in part,

“I braced for the worst — but when the story broke, I was floored.The piece did go viral, but the response was overwhelmingly positive. I was flooded with messages of support. “Was that your article on disability at Stanford?” a recent grad from Stanford’s Business School texted me. “THANK YOU for writing it and the courage to include your own story among the examples. I came straight from the army to Stanford and was initially deeply uncomfortable with the ‘gaming’ of the system I saw, for disabilities and other issues. And by the time I graduated two years later, I found myself playing some of those games. I didn’t know if I had lost a part of myself and my integrity, or if this was simply the real world I had to navigate.”

I am considerably cheered by that response, if indeed it was the general response and not one cherry-picked to make an interesting follow-up. I confess that I have my doubts.

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Quote of the Week, Self-Delusion Division: Jeff Stein, Washington Post’s Chief Economics Correspondent

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

“This is a tragic day for American journalism, the city of Washington and the country as a whole. I’m grieving for reporters I love and whose work upheld the truest and most noble callings of the profession.They are being punished for mistakes they did not cause.”

—-Jeff Stein, The Post’s chief economics correspondent, bemoaning the lay-offs today of some 300 Washington Post journalists

Who does Stein think he’s kidding? Or is he completely oblivious to his own paper’s abandonment of fair, honest and objective journalism that is a major, if not the only reason for the Washington Post’s demise?

Stein was quoted in the New York Times’ gloating report of today’s metaphorical massacre. It wrote in part,

“The Washington Post carried out a widespread round of layoffs on Wednesday that decimated the organization’s sports, local news and international coverage.

The company laid off about 30 percent of all its employees, according to two people with knowledge of the decision. That includes people on the business side and more than 300 of the roughly 800 journalists in the newsroom, the people said.

The cuts are a sign that Jeff Bezos, who became one of the world’s richest people by selling things on the internet, has not yet figured out how to build and maintain a profitable publication on the internet. The paper expanded during the first eight years of his ownership, but the company has sputtered more recently.”

The Washington Post figured out too late that the country only needed one all-Democrat-all-the-time biased paper, and that the New York Times was better at its biased reporting and pandering to its bubble than the Post anyway.

The Post could have survived, I believe, by becoming a national paper that strove for even-handedness and objectivity, leaving the Frustrated Right to the Wall Street Journal and the Angry Left to the Times. USA Today had failed miserably at filling that niche (Have you read that rag lately? Weekly Reader used to be more informative!). The opportunity was there once, but many years ago. Instead, the Post continued to inflict flagrant Axis hacks on its dwindling non-woke readers, propaganda agents like E.J. Dionne, Richard Cohen, Dana Milbank, Phillip Bump, Kathleen Parker, Eugene Robinson, Jonathan Capehart and more. Since the local readership was about 95% Democrat, hey, why bother being fair or non-partisan?

Well, people like me and my wife constituted one reason. The Post is my local paper, but we got so sick of its spin and bias, particularly its efforts to sanitize Bill Clinton’s corruption and lies during Monicagate, that we paid three times what the Post cost to have the New York Times delivered every morning. I confess that I was influenced in my decision by the suffering of my professional theater company, which deliberately eschewed the navel-gazing woke dramas that were slobbered over by the Post’s theater critics and was repeatedly slammed and snubbed by the paper’s critics for it.

I remember one of the few times the Post’s chief critic deigned to attend an American Century Theater revival (they were virtually all revivals) of Gore Vidal’s satirical political thriller, “The Best Man.” She actually wrote that Vidal’s script was dated and unbelievable, because a Presidential candidate would never lose an election because of character issues, that only his policies mattered. This was, of course, while the Post was licking Bill Clinton’s metaphorical boots.

Pages: 1 2